bioshockfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Fontaine (Level)
Why? Why is there an ADAM Inducer Device at all in Rapture? Fontaine couldn't have built this all while Jack was becoming a Big Daddy, so that means it was already there. What would be the point of it though because Ryan would never use it. 02:51, July 10, 2010 (UTC) Improvements needed on this page Images *Screenshots around Fontaine's hideout. Ending I harvested the second little sister and I still got the last ending you mention. It seems that there is a threshold to this. I had agreed to save the little sisters though by saving the first one. I did save all the other little sisters throughout the game. Huh? According to this article, you should start by using the napalm against Fontaine. Makes sense in his ice form, but using fire against a dude made of fire doesn't seem like an effective strategy...In fact, when I fought Fontaine, I did the complete opposite: I started off using the electric gel, and when I ran out, I switched to napalm and used it on his final (electric) form. Worked fine for me, and made better sense than what's written on this page. Also, it states that after Fontaine charges you the first time, he stands still. I don't know if that's a bug or something, but that has never happened to me; When I fight Fontaine he is always on the move. --Ant423 00:19, December 20, 2009 (UTC)Ant423 Endings What happens if you don't do anything to the Little Sisters except the first one? Does the ending depend on the first little Sister? --OneMind 18:08, December 23, 2009 (UTC) I'm pretty sure that you get the bad ending #2, the one that Tenembaum narrates with a sad voice, regardless of whether or not you save or harvest the first sister. Either that, or you get no ending at all. I'm also curious as to what Tenembaum and the sisters say when you get to her safehouse. --Ant423 18:11, December 23, 2009 (UTC)Ant423 Is someone willing to try this? --OneMind 11:32, December 24, 2009 (UTC) There are three endings. The good ending, and two bad endings. In the PC/Mac movie files, the good ending is called SavedGatherers.mov, the first bad ending is called KilledGatherers.mov, and the second is called HarvestedGatherers.mov. The player will receive the KilledGatherers.mov ending if he saved the first little sister, and will receive the HarvestedGatherers.mov ending if he harvested all of them. The difference between them, is that the narrative in the KilledGatherers.mov is sorrowful, and in the HarvestedGatherers.mov is angry. Hope that helps. :) EDlTʘR •taIk• 19:23, December 24, 2009 (UTC) There really needs to be an action towards sorting the endings out once and for all. I have looked here and scoured all around FAQs/walkthroughs, message boards, .etc, and there are still multiple different answers to exactly what conditions must be met to get what ending. Worst of all, the majority of people were simply going by speculation and hearsay, and there was minimal (if at all) attempts to actually test things out. So I've done this to some extent, but I'm not going to continue further, because I think there might potentially be something wrong with my game.. or perhaps there isn't, in which case I need other people to check if they get similar results. At any rate I am very sure that the current ending conditions written in this article are unsatisfactory to cover all situations (they assume that people harvest/save every single little sister in the game, when a player can simply avoid the majority of little sisters/big daddies if they choose to). So I just experimented with this on the PC version of the game in 'PC mode' with easy difficulty (NOT 'XBox 360' controller mode, which actually has several differences to PC mode, although I would assume the mechanics for the endings would be the same). I saved the first little sister (as without glitching, there is no way to NOT save/harvest her, as I believe the door is locked until you make a choice). When I finished the game without saving/harvesting any other little sisters I got the 'GOOD' ending (#3 on the page). I then loaded my save in the Proving Grounds just before entering the lift to Fontaine and went back to harvest/rescue the little sisters that I skipped (in my big daddy suit, preventing splicer aggro and making this much easier). If I killed one little sister (at Point Prometheus, although I assume area doesn't matter) I also get ending #3. Now if I kill another little sister I get the 'WORST/ANGRY' ending (#2). From there, I went back and rescued each little sister, checking from time to time if the ending changed. It didn't.. all the way from 'saved 2, rescued 2' to 'saved 19, rescued 2'. It remained as ending #2. This of course, is concerning, since I (according this article) should be getting ending #1. So this leaves a few possibilities: My game could be bugged somehow, which I would highly doubt (but possible none the less). Or.. the PC version (1.1) ending conditions could be different to the PC (1.0), Xbox 360 and PS3 versions. Or.. there might be more to the conditions than the number of Little Sisters harvested by the end of the game (ex. whether the first little sister is saved/rescued, how many little sisters were harvested/rescued before reaching Tenenbaum's safehouse, .etc). Considering the first two possibilities, I don't wish to spend any more time on this (as I don't have the console versions to test things), so I'll just leave the data I have here, and perhaps someone can pick up on it, and finally solve forever what the actual ending conditions are. Save = # of little sisters saved by end of game, Harvest = # of little sisters harvested by end of game, Good = Ending #3, Worst = Ending #2, Untested = Unknown what ending the corresponding save/harvest combination gives (although the other results suggest that they are all the worst ending). You can obtain my exact game testing conditions from what I've written above. Save Harvest Ending 1 0 Good 1 1 Good 1 2 Worst 2 2 Worst 3 2 Worst 4 2 Worst 5 2 Untested 6 2 Worst 7 2 Untested 8 2 Untested 9 2 Worst 10 2 Untested 11 2 Untested 12 2 Worst 13 2 Untested 14 2 Untested 15 2 Worst 16 2 Untested 17 2 Untested 18 2 Worst 19 2 Worst Also I noticed in my PC game files that I have all 3 ending movies, however only endings #2 & #3 have 5 different audio language tracks (English, and I think 4 other European languages). Ending #1 only has the English track. I'm not sure if that means anything, but since I can't get ending #1 (when apparantly I should), it seems suspect. So if anyone with the PC version (1.1) can confirm that they can actually get ending #1 through actual gameplay (i.e. not by watching it on YouTube like many people did) and give the little sister conditions then that would be helpful. Same goes for Xbox 360 & PS3 users, however from what I've been reading, I assume that ending #1 is definitely possible on these consoles. Two quick related notes: There are speedruns on YouTube that 'glitch' past the first little sister (hence end up not saving/harvesting any little sisters the entire game) by purposefully dying and reviving in a Vita-Chamber. Anyway, this appears to result in the 'good' ending #3. Also, there's technically an ending #4 where you die in the final boss fight, which as far as I know is the only place you can permanently die/lose the game. You are sent straight to the menu screen (there's no movie). Anyway hope some others can get onto this and contribute! Regardless, the information about the endings on the article should be rewritten only to reflect 'confirmed' ways of getting the endings as opposed to speculated. LotsoRobbinBear (talk) 13:58, May 20, 2014 (UTC) Image An image should be added to this page, preferably of the whole level. Thanks Boonzeet 02:27, January 7, 2010 (UTC) Title? Hey, where do you find the name "The Endgame"? I can't seem to find it. EDlTʘR •taIk• 01:00, February 26, 2010 (UTC) :Although I, too, don't remember where it comes from, I feel it has appeared somewhere in the game or it's files. I hope someone else can provide more insight, though.~''Ṃᶒɠą§ɔîéɳčę' [[User talk:MegaScience|{ '''talk }]]'' 01:49, February 26, 2010 (UTC) ::The naming is inconsistant. (Favourite word lol) All pages reference this level as The Endgame, but the page itself is called Fontaine (Level). May we please either change the title of the page or the name on the other pages accordingly? Phoenix saturn 21:04, May 8, 2010 (UTC) :::We don't change pages to fit the old naming system, we go by the given name. If you check my contributions, I've done fixes like this for other pages. I'll get right on fixing the redirects. ~''Ṃᶒɠą§ɔîéɳčę' [[User talk:MegaScience|{ '''talk }]]'' 21:23, May 8, 2010 (UTC) Some tips for the Quick-And-Easy strategy Stacking Electric Flesh 1 and 2, Human Inferno 1 and 2 and Frozen Field 1 and 2 and only using the Flamethrower (all three types of ammunition) will make this battle so much easier. The Tonics will boost the Flamethrower's damage and protect you from Fontaine's attacks. The only Plasmids needed are Security Bullseye (for Bots) and Target Dummy (for Splicers). My fight against Fontaine was ridiculously easy using this loadout. Is this worth mentioning in the article? M0RGION 19:09, March 21, 2011 (UTC) :Sure, if you can put the info in a good format. ~'Gardimuer' [[User talk:Gardimuer|{ ʈalk }]] 21:42, March 21, 2011 (UTC) What happens if you die in the fight? there are no vita-chambers, so i dont know 03:59, January 17, 2012 (UTC) Both the good and bad endings... Ken said... whatever but Bioshock's endings were still vague Good? - Jack dying on surface... fine , but nothing about Rapture... Bad? - Splicers shown attacking a Navy submarine, but no outcome is shown ...marines machingun them down? and the sub closes up and submerges, or Jack soon dies of ADAM overindulgence .... whatever. BS2 shows Rapture still being there years later Just like Elizabeth 'saving Sally' and assisting Fontaine to ruin Rapture and kill thousands- but her delusions/visions ...why need they define the future - so maybe Jack harvests Sally later or Sigma kills her as one of the Big Sisters, or Sally falls to one of countless ADAM-hungry splicers (even is that LS in Today's_Raid ). Everything ending there is vague and questionable as well. 08:13, February 26, 2015 (UTC) :The player can decide anything he wants. But the canon end is the good one as per Levine. An extensive discussion and decision of it all was made https://bioshock.fandom.com/wiki/User_talk:Solarmech#Re:_Bioshock_1_Good_Ending_Canon_now%7CHERE sm--Solarmech (talk) 14:57, February 26, 2015 (UTC) :Mindwarp Time. Nothing says that Stanley Poole didnt have the genetic chain tattoo like Jack had. Follow the ramifications of THAT for 'what we thought we saw'. :For BaS being an extension of a game full of parallel realities, it seems Levine took a quite illogical branch 17:05, February 26, 2015 (UTC) ::Trying to make a point about something that has nothing to do with Bioshock doesn't get you any points. As for a game of alternate realities you seem to have forgotten that Elizabeth had a power to see Behind All the Doors as well as combine and manipulate realities. Just as Booker's decision to reject the baptism was turned into a Constant, it was within her powers and abilities to make sure that Jack rescuing the Little Sisters became a constant as well. She just had to die to make it work. If you don't like it, there is nothing I can do about it. But whatever you opinions or beliefs, Levine's statement still stands and New Information (statements from Levine) Trumps Old information (anything in Bioshock 2). sm --Solarmech (talk) 20:16, February 26, 2015 (UTC) :::From what I interpreted of Levine's comments, Elizabeth acted towards the good ending, but that does not mean she could influence Jack's choice of saving or harvesting the Little Sisters. She saw one of the ends with him rescuing the girls, but let's not forget it may not be a constant. In a large scale, you can also speculate that in any game where the main character can be killed, each of his/her death are different outcome to the same story. Pauolo (talk) 20:32, February 26, 2015 (UTC) :::Point is that once you start dealing with 'alternate' realities then just about everything concrete is 'out the window'. Bioshock descended into that morass (and the DLC is a direct successor to that). Elizabeth does and doesnt have her 'powers', is or isnt back a baby, Booker is Comstock, is the guy in Rapture, is the 150 other flips of the coin... You cant base your arguments on any 'Constants' here. In quantum-land there ARE no constants -- its fundamental, and diverging from that is just part of the contrived storyline. Far more consistant to use that aspect to explain all the conflicting weirdness in BaS and the whole multiple ending thing of the previous games. Makes me think that Levine is making believe he has any power to define whats what, when he was overridden by the company before (and they no longer care, now that Bioshock is history). :::Theres actually alot of philosophical discussion out there about WHEN canon is no longer controlled by people who originally wrote the stories (and here someone mentioned it was The Company who overruled Levine to put in the BS1/BS2 multiple endings - they apparently were the actual ones who ultimately defined Canon). :::Anyway so Poole finds Redemption and saves those Little Sisters and dies of ADAM deterioration in those BS1 'good' scenes (except its BS2 times...). Like I said ... alternate realities - anythings possible. ::: 02:19, February 27, 2015 (UTC) ::::Yup, that's pretty much that. Levine was more for no player choice at all when it comes to the story. I still love the multiple ends of Bio2. Pauolo (talk) 07:17, February 27, 2015 (UTC) ::::Minimum it gives you a reason to play through a second time a different way, which with the decreasing playthrough times these days is pretty important. I saw an awful lot of players on forums saying there was no point to play Infinite a second time because it was just going to be exactly the same (couple that with the shooting game being far more repetitive with fewer weapon/plasmid differences). 11:28, February 27, 2015 (UTC) The concept of Constants and Variables is central to BSI and is clearly stated IN GAME. Real world physics has no say in how the Bioshock universe is set up. If you want flying cities or bee's shooting from a characters hands, that is what it's going to be. Since there certainly ARE constants in the BS reality things will happen or NOT happen as a result. Booker will always choose 77 and he can never beat Songbird. As a result of Elizabeth's actions, Booker will always choose to reject the Baptism. Those are the facts. If you don't want to except that, it's your decision 75.36.141.140. But it has not place on this Wiki. Also you seem to be to not be considering Elizabeth's personality very much. She killed Booker in order to get rid of Comstock. She does NOT do things by half measures. She would not say to herself "Oh, I saved half of them, that's good enough." No, she would want to save ALL of them. Same as she wanted to kill all the Comstocks. As for Jack's choice to harvest or not, didn't you consider that the reason that Elizabeth choose the way she did was because she knew what his choice would be ahead of time? (Not to forget she could easily say "Would you kindly save all the Little Sisters") Elizabeth had limited omniscience. If she wants to know something she *will* be able to find it out almost instantly and plan accordingly. What's more she was able to see the results of her actions even before she takes them and could change things so they worked out the way she wanted. Please do not confuse gameplay mechanics with storyline. sm - But that is just it. I as Jack DIDNT choose the way "she thought I would", as I frequently ate every LIttle SIster's tasty sea slug parasite I could find, and even sometimes stopped the game at certain points never to reach Ryan (ditto with Sigma and Delta). Who says she isn't more than just delusional/insane, having been repeatedly damaged by 'Tear' traversals (or whatever) and the whole thing isnt just a fever dream back in the assylum (or its actually Booker having this bizaare 'Dream' ??) So no matter what she tries or doesnt it doesnt really matter. You also have to face that she has a strange kind of ethics/mentality which allows her to focus/obsess on some one child while completely missing the thousands of other 'unworthy' children she is condemning to miserable/horrible violent death (even if it is only a dream -- it is telling how she acts even in a dream). As for real science/physics not mattering, then what more sign needed that it IS a dream fantasyland? We expect real motives and reasons for the way people/the society act/react (all that socially-relevant/historic 'story' stuff touted which allegedly sets the game apart from those shallow shoot-em-up competitors) , but that is made irrelevant when this other part of the game situation doesnt follow through the same way. They simply could have called it ANYTHING else beside 'quantum physics'/particles/whatever to get away from any association with the realworld thing they conflict/contradict/scramble over and over with. Instead they simply used easy buzzwords to sound all sciencey, when they could as easily been talking magic roots and spirit crystals with better logic consistancy. As Ive said elsewhere, the so called American 'history'/religion element is even more a fantasy than the purported science. Its heavyhanded and feeble at the same time. It might serve like a painted backdrop for a elementary school play drama, but motives of various characters in the story are supposedly based on this bizaarely contrived situation. Caricature world equals caricature characters. If you have REAL social issues, then show them at more than a third graders misinterpretation. It is ALL thrown together to justify the shooting game and to ease the writing task. It results in a setting little better than a badly done shadow puppet play. 19:42, February 27, 2015 (UTC) :I have to agree with Testxyz on this one, though I believe we deviated from the subject of what to do with the endings. Tbh I rewrote what Solarmech added when he added it because it was in relation to how the endgame was originally envisioned. I didn't leave that the happy end was to be considered as the right one, just that Ken Levine wanted Elizabeth's motives in BaS2 to be for that one. Otherwise, it would have been saying that the first game's outcome was not of the player's choice when it is, even if it was requested by the publisher and not the developers. Pauolo (talk) 20:09, February 27, 2015 (UTC) :Good ending, Bad ending? You remove even that ability to explore that and you have a world where everything the player did doesnt matter in any way, and with the way this game was written the 'story' itself is just meager prop, so not much is left (glitzy 3D effects is a CONSTANT these days). : 20:17, February 27, 2015 (UTC) :Yup, but I can still enjoy a good story even with the absence of choice. Also player's choice doesn't always mean well-written story. Dishonored is an example, the plot to the assassination of the Empress and the implication of the Regent in the propagation of the rat plague was predictable, but the game compensates that for a universe rich in anecdotes on its cultures and past, something Infinite could have done better imho. Pauolo (talk) 21:25, February 27, 2015 (UTC) I guess I will have to say it again since you didn’t get it the first time. New Information Supersedes Old Information. Burial at Sea and recent statements made by Levine take precedence over anything in Bioshock 1 or Bioshock 2. BaS shows only the Good Ending happening. Levine’s statement is that Elizabeth died so that it would happen. Not that it *might* happen, or that it *could* happen. But that it WOULD happen. This is not an ambiguous statement in any way. Just because there is an in game choice made by the player, it in no way means there is not a canon result that ignores what the player chose. That is the case here. The player having the ability it chose a good or bad ending does not change the canon ending. This is not new to games in any way. At the end of Half Life 1the player had the choice to work for the G-Man or not. The canon choice is that he did go to work for the G-Man and that is what we see in Half Life 2 and the Episodes. At the start of Homeworld 1 you can choose the Exiles to be the Kushan or the Taiidan. But Homeworld 2 it makes it VERY clear that the Exiles were the Kushan is canon. Burial At Sea made the Good ending of Bioshock 1 canon just as Half Life 2 made the decision to work for the G-Man in Half Life 1. This does nothing to change anyone's enjoyment of the game. Only that one of the endings is canon and the others are not. People can decide they want what for the end of Bioshock 1. You can also decide that the Earth is flat. But what you decide is not what is important. The best and most current information is what is important on this wiki. And to Pauolo, just to make things clear. I do not want you to alter anything of mine in Talk or respond to anything I say in Talk. Given your recent actions against me, I do not want to have any direct contact with you here or anywhere else. I hope I have made my position clear. This subject is not open for discussion. My apologies to everyone else for bringing up this here. sm --Solarmech (talk) 15:20, February 28, 2015 (UTC) :I do not think our recent clash on the Irrational Games forums deprives me from my right of commenting on talk pages about the content of this wiki's articles. I never modified anyone's messages on talk pages and will never do, even for personal reasons. Also I have never made any action against you, and if you're referring to your addition of Ken Levine's commentary on BioShock's ending, know that I modified that paragraph the day you posted it, and so before our recent different. I also don't want to bring this here either, because personal matters have no place on wikis when it comes to writing articles. :Finally I don't believe that banning users for opinion divergence is a good reason. I once advocated Testxyz's ban because he was annoyingly stubborn and provocative, even if he can come up with theories as much interesting as yours, but I don't believe his current behavior is ruining the mood for now. Pauolo (talk) 22:34, February 28, 2015 (UTC)